The difference, Parker had made more all-star teams, more all-NBA teams, has had better numbers in the regular and postseason overall, has gotten more MVP love and has played a bigger role on two of the three Spurs title teams between 2003-2007. And as a small but still notable exclamation point, Parker has a Finals MVP.

Parker deserves to be rated higher even if you personally believe Manu is better.

Sometimes people value talent over results. Those people must concede that in the end results are what matter objectively...

I'll never rank a player over another (better)player just because that player has had a better career. The better player should always be ranked higher, no exceptions, that is as long as that's what I'm trying to measure.

Now, I will use both player's careers as a measure for determining the better player, but that's different. A better career is often indicative of a better player, but not always.

For instance, I use Jordan's 6 championships as a major factor in my reasoning for placing him above Shaq, but I ultimately rank him above Shaq not because he won more, but because I believe him to be the better player, and the extra winning comes as a result of that.

Putting it on paper, that explanation isn't as clear as I had hoped, but hopefully that made sense.